Source · Select Committees · Justice Committee

Recommendation 2

2 Not Addressed Paragraph: 22

Observe OIC portal's low usage by litigants in person due to limited awareness and confidence.

Conclusion
The OIC portal has been designed to support people who have suffered injuries from road traffic accidents to make a claim for compensation without the need for legal help. Initial estimates had suggested 30% of users would not have legal representation, yet this is currently the case for less than 10% of users, and even this figure is disputed by some who suggest it is likely to be lower still. This is largely because of a lack both of awareness around the existence of the OIC and of confidence in navigating a potentially complex system.
Government response summary AI-generated
The government's response describes the OIC service design and feedback mechanisms. It does not directly address the committee's finding that the percentage of unrepresented users is low due to a lack of awareness and confidence.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Paragraph Reference: 22
Government Response Not Addressed
HM Government · verbatim extract Not Addressed
Whilst we accept that the majority of OIC users will continue to use legal representation, it is not clear to what extent a lack of awareness of the portal is responsible for the low number of unrepresented claims. Accordingly, we recommend that the MoJ and Motor Insurers’ Bureau conduct research to better understand this, and whether steps to improve awareness of the OIC portal and user-confidence in the system would encourage more litigants in person. (Paragraph 23) Unrepresented claim volumes : We note that some claimant representatives put forward an estimate in their written evidence that the OIC is underperforming, and that the volume of unrepresented users is below the 30% target set by the Government. This figure has been taken from the final Impact Assessment which was published in support of the Civil Liability Act (CLA) 2018 reaching Royal Assent. 7 It is standard practice for Government to update Impact Assessments as a policy progresses and more data and evidence becomes available. During the passage of the CLA 2018 through Parliament, additional feedback and evidence was received from stakeholders from across the claimant representative sector and from the judiciary on how many unrepresented claimants they felt there would be. Having considered this feedback, the 5% assumption included in the Bill stage Impact Assessment was therefore revised upwards to 30% to take account of this additional claimant representative and judicial stakeholder input. So, to be clear, this was an assumption—not a target—designed to indicate a maximum number of possible users. The MoJ has not set any targets for increasing the number and proportion of unrepresented claimants and this has never been an objective of the whiplash reform programme. OIC was designed to be accessible to both unrepresented and represented claimants. The proportion of unrepresented claimants has remained broadly consistent since the implementation of the whiplash reforms and the launch of the OIC service on 31 May 2021. Of the 67,327 claims registered in the July – September 2023 quarter, a total of 7,544 (11.2%) were made by unrepresented claimants and 59,783 (88.8%) had professional representation. There has been a small increase in the proportion of unrepresented claimants using OIC, from 9.4% during the first quarter of operation (May-Sep 21) to 11.2% in the most recent quarter. Defining an unrepresented claimant : We are aware that some claimant representatives have asserted that the actual unrepresented claimant figure is closer to 3%. This estimate appears to have been calculated by assuming that claimants are not truly unrepresented if they are receiving third party support from someone other than a lawyer, such as a family friend, colleague or an insurer. The MoJ disputes this definition. An unrepresented claimant is an individual who is using the OIC service directly, without the assistance of a legal professional and irrespective of whether they are seeking/receiving help from another type of professional (such as a teacher, advice sector provider or an insurance company). Visibility : We note the Committee’s comments regarding the visibility of the OIC service to unrepresented claimants. However, we firmly believe the approach taken in this area since the system’s launch has been the correct one. As stated in our previous written submission to this inquiry, the Government made a deliberate decision not to spend public money on an expensive but short-lived awareness campaign to advertise the implementation of the whiplash reforms and the launch and operation of the OIC portal. Such a campaign would not be relevant to the majority of the public, who only need to use such a system if they suffer an injury following an accident. Instead, we focused on ensuring that OIC was publicised through social media channels and via insurance companies (who are the first point of contact for a claimant following an accident), and that information was accessible when it was sought by claimants. We have also provided third sector advice organisations with information and toolkits to support and signpost any injured claimants who contact them. Information about OIC and how to use it was, and continues to be, put out on OIC’s Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and X (formally Twitter) channels. Additional work was also done by MIB to increase OIC’s online visibility, including through search engine optimisation and via information on OIC itself, such as guidance on what is the service is and how to use it, along with frequently asked questions. This is available via both GOV.UK 8 and OIC’s website. 9 Guidance : Paragraph 16 of the Committee’s report refers to the ‘help hub 10 ’ and ‘ Guide to making a claim 11 ’. It may be helpful if we clarify that the guidance was drafted by MIB with oversight from MoJ, but it is maintained by MIB and is hosted on the OIC website and not GOV.UK. It is a reference guide and is specifically designed to be used by claimant
Read the full response on Parliament ↗